ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Beyond the scalpel: humanistic training and professional identity formation in postgraduate plastic surgery education.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Postgraduate plastic surgery education has traditionally emphasized anatomical knowledge, operative technique, aesthetic judgment, and procedural competence. However, plastic surgery practice is also shaped by aesthetic expectations, body image concerns, psychosocial vulnerability, medico-legal risk, and commercialized doctor-patient relationships. These tensions suggest that technical training alone is insufficient for preparing trainees to manage the humanistic challenges of contemporary plastic surgery. This study aimed to develop a Professional Identity Formation (PIF)-based humanistic framework for postgraduate plastic surgery education. Methods: This study adopted a review and framework-development design. First, bibliometric mapping was conducted using records from the Web of Science Core Collection to identify the thematic structure of medical humanities education. Second, literature on litigation, malpractice claims, patient complaints, negative reviews, and medico-legal risks in plastic surgery was synthesized to clarify the specialty-specific conflict structure. Finally, the two evidence streams were integrated through the lens of PIF to construct a humanistic training framework for postgraduate plastic surgery education. Results: The keyword co-occurrence analysis identified four major thematic clusters in medical humanities education: reflection-driven clinical learning, narrative-based patient understanding, professional identity and sustainable empathy, and contextualized whole-person care. The synthesis of plastic surgery conflict literature showed that disputes are rarely caused by technical failure alone, but are shaped by outcome-expectation gaps, complications, informed-consent and documentation problems, communication breakdowns, commercialization and professional-boundary tensions, and system-process failures. Integrating these findings, this study proposes a PIF-based humanistic framework that connects reflective learning, patient narratives, sustainable empathy, whole-person care, and professional conscience with the real clinical challenges of plastic surgery training. Conclusion: Humanistic training in plastic surgery should not be treated as an optional supplement to technical education. Rather, it should be understood as a core process through which trainees develop ethical judgment, professional boundaries, emotional resilience, patient-centered responsibility, and a stable professional identity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.